After much searching on Head Fi I just ordered an ATH-AD900 (fingers crossed)

The question is this:

I am thinking about adding a FiiO E17 into the mix.

1. Good or bad idea?

2. If good how does one get that all hooked up correctly?

Do you already have a FiiO E17? AD900 don't need the extra amp power, but I can see it being a good idea if you want to use the E17's EQ. AD900 are bass light, so you could EQ their bass up with the E17. Of course, if you are EQing them a bunch, you should probably be using different headphones.

To hook it up you would just run a mini to mini cable (3.5mm male to male) from the mixamp's headphone jack (or Y-splitter if your doing voice chat) to the E17's "AUX" in.

If you don't already have an E17, I might say "bad idea" - or at least "expensive idea"...

Let me say this. I only just begun my affair with this money hungry audio mistress. I needed to game at night so I went cheap annd bought skull candy ear buds.what was I thinking!?!? = Garbage, gunshots sound like BB's purely stupid thinking on my part

Took em' back and bought $30 pair of Sony on ear phones = Thought OK now I am on to something...... then screw that go big

I had a quick look at wikipedia's page on the subject and it sounds like HRTFs can only do azimuth and elevation beyond a very close range, it's down to the audio to deal with how far away something is. For example, in an enclosed area in a game, a sound source at a distance would be mostly reflected audio, but I don't know if even the best environmental effects can do this. Yeah, I try this in the rightmark positional audio test thing, EAX 4 HD, the sound coming from right next to the ear has the same distortion as as far away as the program allows for. Maybe Rapture 3D can do it?

The sound itself is definitely a large part of it but I do get different amounts of distance with different headphones.

So, dolby headphone takes 5.1 audio, converts it to stereo audio that has surround information that can be decoded by the brain.

The pinna, the concha, and the head, in a sense, is also designed to take surround sound and convert it to stereo audio that has surround information that can be decoded by the brain.

So, what I'm saying, is that if you have one, you don't need the other, and both together may interfere with one another.

So, it follows that IEMs may actually be the best solution for dolby headphone gaming, since they go directly in the ear canal, and avoid the additional "processing" done by some of the outer ear and head structures.

This could lead to a paradigm shift from the notion that open headphones with huge drivers are best suited for gaming.

That being said, I do currently use an audio technica ad700 with dolby headphone in TF2, and find the surround very convincing.

I will do a comparison with shure se215 when I get home (not sure when that will be though).

I think the issue is that we don't really know what target Dolby was aiming for when they designed the algorithm. You can make one that works just as well either way. You can include or exclude whatever physical effect you want. Dolby would either have to spill the beans or we'd need a large sample of people stating which one worked best for them. HRTFs are all individual anyway and a generic algorithm like DH can only aim for an average so different people can have different results.

Given the general consensus that IEMs don't work to well with DH it seems likely that Dolby's target was normal headphones. OTOH, it may also be that not enough people have tried IEMs or tried the right IEMs so it may be that the ones who have chimed in saying that IEMs don't work are just outliers.

Given all that I think it would be best for newcomers to start out with the current consensus. It's the safest bet. Of course that shouldn't discourage future experimentation which might lead to a new and better consensus.

So, it follows that IEMs may actually be the best solution for dolby headphone gaming, since they go directly in the ear canal, and avoid the additional "processing" done by some of the outer ear and head structures.

This could lead to a paradigm shift from the notion that open headphones with huge drivers are best suited for gaming.

I hear what your saying, and it makes sense that you should avoid adding in additional "processing" from the interaction between your ear/head structure and headphone drivers ontop of the dolby headphone signal.

Let me say that I haven't used many IEMs myself (certainly not good ones :s ) so this is mostly speculation...
From my experience, a headphone's/IEM's soundstage plays a very important part in actually extracting those positioning and distance cues that are embedded in a Dolby Headphone signal. When I say "soundstage" I'm talking about several things: like separation, imaging/positioning, size (height, depth, width), etc.

Non-binaural stereo music has cues too, the cues just aren't as good as binaural recordings (which use special mics that record HRTFs, resulting in better spacial cues). I think the general consensus is that it's harder for IEMs to handle those cues as adeptly as full size headphones. I'm assuming this is a (limitation?) of their design....

So even though IEMs avoid/bypass the extra HRTF effects from full size headphones and give you a more direct/pure/whatever signal to your ear drum, their inherent soundstage perhaps isn't able to take advantage of those cues the same way full size headphones can.

The way I've always looked at it is, that's why speakers > headphones > IEMs (and not necessarily just for gaming, I mean in general) when it comes to realism; the natural reflections are what make it sound lifelike, whether that's reflections from your ear or your acoustic space. IEMs have to attempt to replicate that in whatever way they can.

I was "raised" a purist when it comes to all things audio-related, though, so I generally hate (read: refuse to use) EQs or really anything that affects the intended sound in any way. The only exception to that is Dolby Headphone and I only use that for gaming or the occasional movie.Edited by He11fire217 - 4/17/12 at 5:16pm

I think the issue is that we don't really know what target Dolby was aiming for when they designed the algorithm. You can make one that works just as well either way. You can include or exclude whatever physical effect you want. Dolby would either have to spill the beans or we'd need a large sample of people stating which one worked best for them. HRTFs are all individual anyway and a generic algorithm like DH can only aim for an average so different people can have different results.

Given the general consensus that IEMs don't work to well with DH it seems likely that Dolby's target was normal headphones. OTOH, it may also be that not enough people have tried IEMs or tried the right IEMs so it may be that the ones who have chimed in saying that IEMs don't work are just outliers.

Given all that I think it would be best for newcomers to start out with the current consensus. It's the safest bet. Of course that shouldn't discourage future experimentation which might lead to a new and better consensus.

yea, i agree with everything you say here, and have been saying since my original post, I just wanted to make sure people understood what i was talking about.

Especially with the last thought there, yea, I don't want I've said to discourage people from buying the recommended headphones in this thread, since there is not enough evidence to suggest that the IEM route would be better at this point.

@chicolom

Yes, what you said about non-binaural tracks and IEM's limited sound stage is true afaik.

However, when you do actually have the luxury of a surround sound source and dolby headphone processing, it is completely plausible for all that to go out the window.

The sound stage problem shouldn't really matter in this case imo because the audio itself has already been altered so that the brain can derive surround information from it.

Maverick, Chicolom, mindbomb: Fascinating stuff you guys are discussing. I'm wondering, should we agree on what IEMs have "good" soundstage? E.g. would the IE8 cut it?

I don't really know. There are a lot of factors and too many factors I don't have any info on. I started typing something up but it was going to get overly long and complicated, even for me, so I gave up. Maybe sometime later...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mindbomb

yea, i agree with everything you say here, and have been saying since my original post, I just wanted to make sure people understood what i was talking about.

Especially with the last thought there, yea, I don't want I've said to discourage people from buying the recommended headphones in this thread, since there is not enough evidence to suggest that the IEM route would be better at this point.

Cool. Maybe I was misunderstanding you a little.

Let us know how your Shures work out. I'd test my IEMs with DH but I don't have a mixamp or any hardware implementation of it. I just hang out here for this kind of technical stuff. I could use the DH plugin for foobar if I had any multichannel music or something to play though it. Using an upmixer on stereo stuff would amount to tailoring it to my own headphones and HRTF and not be very useful to anyone else here.

Dolby Headphone and CMSS both require hardware for processing right? Meaning, either a soundcard capable of it, or something like the MixAmp. Is there a way to do this without upgrading my soundcard on my PC?

Would a program like Isone Pro work for games? It has a feature which allows surround sound, and increased soundstage, when listening to music. I was wondering if this could work for games also. This seems like an alternative to purchasing a soundcard.

Lastly, is it possible to connect a PS3 to a computer, so Isone Pro can provide the surround sound?